file-manager

[JimiV]

I know the argument of using what is working and not worrying about future use. ie "if it ain't broke...."

The problem is the future. Will IDI work with Win8, Win9? I don't want to continue to put time and effort into a software that is no supported by the vendor. If I have a problem with idi, the answer can always be "not supported any more, you should have gone to PSU"

I've always and will continue to support Hert, so I will licence PSU in hopes that it does get back to where it should be. I used IDI for DAM because it's the program for it. LR for editing only, as it's DAM is weak. But if I were a new user thinking about buying a DAM product? No way would I see the value in PSU as opposed to just using LR. With IDI it was obvious, not so much now.

[Craig Joiner]

Like JimiV I am also thinking of using lightroom although from what I have seen of it so far it lacks a lot of what made IDI great and I think the migration is going to be a big issue.

I'd rather not abandon IDI but I also worry about the future (new OS and cameras plus software changes to Photoshop etc.) but if I migrate now I have control over when and how I do that rather than later when it is forced on me.

Also, for me IDI is currently broken and I am getting by with an old version that has a flaky metadata sync system and keeps corrupting images. The latest versions of IDI fixed all that and for a while it was the best IDI I had ever used. Then I discovered it was removing all my ACR local adjustments from DNG files. I am using ACR with DNG files more and more at the moment so I was forced to roll back to an old version of IDI and deal with it's idiosyncratic nature of metadata updates.

I was happy to live with this in the belief it would be resolved with the next release but in recent weeks I have found this issue to be hurting me more than I can continue to live with. I must have sensed something was afoot because on Monday downloaded the Lightroom trial. Yesterday, while browsing the forum for some insight on how to migrate to Lightroom I discovered IDI had just been killed off.

I have always had a lot of respect for Hert and his responsiveness to bugs and feature requests. It made IDI stand out in a market dominated by big software giants who bought, crippled then abandoned software. Sadly yesterday's announcement felt all too familiar and not what I have come to expect.

I would be willing to use PSU if it were not for the fact it lacks some basic features that are on my must have list. Hert's blunt statement yesterday and comments today suggest these are unlikely to be added to PSU.

[gcoupe]

I have always had a lot of respect for Hert and his responsiveness to bugs and feature requests. It made IDI stand out in a market dominated by big software giants who bought, crippled then abandoned software. Sadly yesterday's announcement felt all too familiar and not what I have come to expect.

+1

[silverblue]

I've given PSU a shot, but so far the lack of documentation, features, etc. really makes me wonder why IDI was killed off so unceremoniously. I'd examined other DAM software, and IDI was heads above the rest. The only time I had it choke on importing a photo was when something went wrong and the file date said 12/1/69. It didn't know how to handle that. I changed the info, and the program chugged along happily. PSU seems to be "IDI LIte" (Yes, I've registered it already, no I don't plan on badmouthing it or asking for a refund). But the way that PSU is choking to death on files, the lack of file manager support, etc. (all mentioned above) means that I am probably going to have to go on the hunt again for software that can meet my needs. (BTW: Thanks, Mike, for writing that IDimager Workbook. I bought it and it taught me a great number of things!)

[Mike Buckley]

Glad you liked the Workbook, silverblue. I rather unceremoniously removed the website this morning.

[Preston B]

The lack of a file manager in PSU, akin to the Media Browser in IDI, is a deal killer for me.

I am in total agreement with others who have stated that IDI is "The DAM Tool"--a cut above all the rest. It is sad that it was killed (sacrificed?). It was (is?) my hope that Hert and crew will relent and continue to support IDI in terms of bug fixes and necessary updates. It doesn't need more features, in my opinion, but it would be nice for me and others to be able to continue using it for the long haul.

At this juncture, from what I have seen of PSU, it comes up short for me.

@Mike: I have your Workbook, too. It's been a godsend, and I'll keep using it as long as IDI remains useful for me. Your effort with that book is nothing short of herculean. Many thanks!

--P

[Mike Buckley]

My pleasure, Preston. Thanks also goes to MikeP, everyone on Hert's team and all the great people who made helpful suggestions and provided tips included in the Workbook.

[andy@damroundup.com]

I agree with all that has been said... as well as Mike's amazing effort to document all the wonderfulness that was v5!

[rNeil]

Mike ...

I would so like to be able to agree with most of your statement, but I cannot. We were promised in the STRONGEST terms by Hert personally that IdImager would be continued, and then ... without any "bridging" comments ... Hert simply announces that IdImager is dead and as of yesterday is totally unsupported. Yes, Hert over the years was very helpful ... has been to me also. Wondrously so, and I would love to be able to repay the loyalty with loyalty. Unfortunately, given both The Announcement and the casual way it was handled ... there's not a shred of loyalty to the client base anymore. That hurt.

Second ... as new cameras and new computer tech keep coming out, any program that ceases to be upgraded is soon unusable for those with new cameras or a newer OS. We can use it for a little while ... but not for long, unless we don't get new gear of any kind. As a professional, I can't just stop 'here'. I've got to move forward.

That will soon be away from IdImager. To? That's the UGLY question.

LIghtroom is good enough for our current studio files ... but to handle the online/offfline massive archives we've got? Hardly. First, (and seemingly counter to the above comment but not really so ... ) I"d have to upgrade the "server" computer that's got all those drives attached to it as Lr4 won't run on WinXP, and professionally, there's been no reason to upgrade a computer used only to serve as a file repository for the network. As long as IdImager would be upgraded for file changes from cameras & etc I'd have been fine. Second, it is more of a RAW processor than a straight-up DAM manager, and one of it's HUGE holes in any ability to "track" off-line files. One of several ...

But ... iView/ExpMed/MedPro has IT'S problems ... and the others tend to have more. No good options here that I can see.

Neil

[JimiV]

I'm going to take a look at DigitalPro 6 I looked at it years ago, but loved IDI a lot more. Now it's time to look at it again.

But before I do, I really intend to give PSU a more intensive look.

[rNeil]

Glad you liked the Workbook, silverblue. I rather unceremoniously removed the website this morning.

Mike,

Thanks so much for the workbook ... and your personal help around here. You were so helpful BOTH in understanding IdI-5 here on the forum, and in understanding how to most benefit from that wondrous workbook you built. SO many things were possible for me because or your efforts!

Sorry to hear you took the site down this morning, but then ... no reason to leave it up, was there?

I'm amazed how much this loss ... and it is a loss, as PhoSup is neither supreme nor a replacement for IdI-5 ... hurts, on a very emotional level. Besides the utter intellectual frustration as ... with all the speed of computer/tech changes these days, IdI-5 will be unusably out of date for me within months. After all the work and effort in learning and adopting this, and without any "good" alternative.

I do thank you, and many others who've regularly been on these boards. So many times I've not needed to post a question, as by checking around, it was already answered here.

Sincerely,
R. Neil Haugen

[Roman]

I would like to echo many of the above comments. I am absolutely stunned by the announcement that IDI has been assigned to the scrap heap. I am also very disappointed by the way IDI users are being treated.

In my opinion IDI has proved to be an almost perfect DAM application. I know that IDI had a few wrinkles that needed to be ironed out but discontinuing the product was the last thing I wanted. I can't say it has come as a total surprise, the lack of significant updates and bug fixes had all the hallmarks of a product scheduled for retirement but I was hoping it was just a temporary hiatus while Photo Supreme was being developed.

I have installed Photo Supreme and Hert is right, it is a significantly different product. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, it is a significantly inferior product. I will stick with IDI in the short term but with the lack of information about any planned PS enhancements it is difficult to know what to do in the medium to long term. I just hope that at some point "Photo Supreme Pro" is released that reinstates the lost functionality.

I don't think I am not alone in feeling we have been somewhat misled about IDI's future. Unfortunately, once IDI is no longer capable of running on a current Windows version or does not support current cameras, many users will be voting with their feet. The only hope is that PS will become what it should have been prior to IDI being scrapped.

[Menace]

But ... iView/ExpMed/MedPro has IT'S problems ... and the others tend to have more. No good options here that I can see.

I still hope, that Daminion will be a alternative DAM-Product. But currently they are far away (no own Meta-Table, no file-manager yet...).

It must be difficulty to create a stable, easy to use, good (intuitive) looking, feature-rich DAM-Software. I don't want Lightroom. I hate monopoles.

[rNeil]

It must be difficulty to create a stable, easy to use, good (intuitive) looking, feature-rich DAM-Software. I don't want Lightroom. I hate monopoles.

Apparently so! I think it's both difficult to create the software AND to then attract enough user-base to make it profitable to continue with the project. Hert was amazing in what he created essentially by himself. Certainly, with the demise of IdI-5, there's nothing else really out there. I do like Lightroom as a main "darkroom" tool, and quick & dirty/easy 'home' for my on-computer files.

It is LOUSY at handling numerous large drives of images with multiple versions/derivatives of many of the images. Major SUCKY. That's where IdImager shone, really ...

Neil

[Tom]

The question of a "file manager" should be discussed further IMHO. We discussed it years ago, with some IDI earlier versions, as I remember. The big question was then, if the IDI is a closed catalog system (which operates only with the images which are imported into the database), or an open system, so that every image that IDI would "touch" in the file system will be recorded in the database. Therefore I think I understand Hert's saying "PSU is a DAM, not a File Manager".

Another question is, what operations with files, which are in the catalog, a user wishes to perform. I am not sure if the PSU's feature "Catalog by folder" is relevant for this.

To conclude: we should find out what is the operational problem of a missing file manager, and maybe the developer would explain in a better wording, what does PSU would provide in this respect.

Tom